mapped io for non-default file system

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Mon Jul 1 01:16:24 PDT 2013

On 01/07/2013 08:57, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> Ok, very well. What about AsynchronousFileChannel then? It's the only
> way to do asynchronous file IO and offers the same functionality as
> FileChannel except for #map (although in an asynchronous fashion). So
> unlike FileChannel it can be implemented fully by non-default file
> systems. Is the idea that non-default file systems can implement
> AsynchronousFileChannel but not FileChannel (because they can't
> implement #map) or should they implement neither?
The intention is that the provider can support both, either or none. We 
included this statement in the javadoc for both of the factory methods 
that FileSystemProvider defines:

"A provider that does not support all the features required to construct 
a XXX throws UnsupportedOperationException".

Clearly most of the providers that come up will not support either as 
it's just not practical (even SeekableByteChannel is a challenge in some 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the nio-dev mailing list